How do you explain the difference in meaning when you say "atoms exist" & when you say "God exists?

Question

Specifically try to address what it means to use the word *exist* in both cases. This is an exploratory variation of a related Q that I recently asked. It is a central concern/issue in the branch of philosophy called *metaphysics.* I prefer to see answers supported by explanation of your assumptions and specificreferences to the thoughts of currently living or dead famous philosophers which are always of greater value than casual, unsupported assertions. TWH 06022007-4

uninformed, undereducated b **** is the lowest form of BS

keep it up you silly stupid trolls you will succeed in destroying YA with your mean-spirited disruptive posts. It seems you all believe its just another chatroom for your inane minds to waste time blathering away.

If anyone is full of crap its you and your ... who birthed a jerk like you

Here's a sample Q posted by the pompous troll carpe diem.

"Leave me alone, will you?

Additional Details

2 days ago
someone thinks my question is silly and asks me to stop posting "silly" questions. Ha... as if i'm going to listen to her.

"A question is never silly no matter how silly it is.""

You should take your own quote to heart and stop being a pest at YA.

Hint: I think the word *exists* or *exist* is based as much on differences in the nature of the objects referred to as on the epistemic state or condition of the subject-thinker

Gosh are there nothing but trolls on YA . Jonathan pls go away and learn something about philosophy by studying the subject rather than presuming erroneously that your private thinking has validity.

It sounds like an idiot has opened their mouth and has once again shown how stupid and ignorant so many who post worthless answers to philosophical Q's are. TWH 06022007-6

Yes Jonathan I have just described you based on your non-answer.

Answer 1

Consider the analogy of being (analogia entis) in Thomas Aqunias as providing an insight in regards to your question.

Further, I think that the understanding in terms of the two ways of indicating what "exists" might be tied to the dinstinction between the apprehension of existence on an empirical level and through rational inference. Modernity favors empirical "proofs" for existence, and much of the philosophy of modernity will show this favoritism in terms of the adjudication of what is to be considered to be real. Thus, atoms and considered to exist, because empirical evidence is cited in support of this claim. Can we apprehend a metaphysical or immaterial reality-- for example "God." More classical forms of philosphical discourse, even a modern like Descartes, have permitted this through rational inference. In any case, one has to them make a prudential judgement in regards to the efficacy of these rational inferences, I think John Henry Newman provides a great deal of insight in this respect with his postulations in regards to the illative sense.

Answer 2

Contrary to popular belief this usage is not lazy or indecent nor is it as recent as many of you seem to think. At least as far back as the time of the American Revolution pls or plz was used in place of please in correspondence , again after the introduction of the telegraph, and most recently with the advent of text messaging, and all for the same reason, cost. During the early days of our country both paper and ink were expensive, so there were accepted methods of abbreviation to cram as much information into a letter as possible pls (or plz) was one example of this. When sending telegrams you were charged by the word (as in typing every 5 characters not actual words) so once again pls was used (among many other shortcuts u for you and so on) to make the sending of a message as cost effective as possible. As for text messaging, when first introduced, you may recall, we were charged per message we sent, so cutting letters out of messages meant a single text could be sent instead of two. It became a habit that carried over onto the internet, even though the need for the abbreviation no long exists,,,,to be fair though I am fairly sure you type OK or okay instead of Orl Korrekt which is the widely accepted original phrase the abbreviation came from, so can you really cast stones?

Answer 3

Listen you idiot, dead famous philosophers are not always the best. You are the type of person who loves to read loads of philosophical crap and has very little creativity of your own and you call it philosophy....

Give yourself a break.

I know i haven't answered your question cause even if I do it, it will make no sense to you.... Go to library and read books.. That's where you belong....

I have no doubt that my guess about you is right... Looks like either you have learn nothing in university or have only read books and have no creativity of your own. Don't try to justify your point by researching my previous posts and copying and pasting my answers. They were written in different context. This is not your academic philosophy exam. This is life. Go and get life.

Answer 4

I think that when put in context, the metaphysics of the anti mater that Howrertz theorized in his book " Atoms" can give you the best example of the syngery that creates the nuclea versatile of the ant proton that distorts the concept of the abstract religious philosophy of the two versions of existing in the precarious terathraxtra episode of the pre-organic neutrons that surround the Gramh' s essay on creation called " evolutorious atomus est ergo confutatis "

I hope you dont understand a single word I say as well as I did not understand a single world you say in your question. Best regards.

Answer 5

There is a basic law of physics which is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change form. (ie liquid to solid, solid to gas, etc.) Therefore, it is simple to conclude that all atoms that exist, always have and always will. It can be taken one step further to say that God has always existed and always will. Not necessarily in present form, but in some form. Sorry, I do not have any philosophers to quote, I rely more on scientific law. Science and religion are not at complete odds with each other. As a matter of fact, pure science(not theories, but proven laws), is pure religion.

Answer 6

Sounds like a take home test question

Atoms are matter with testable properties, God is an idea. When you say "atoms exist" you are stating empirical testable evidence. When you say "God exists", you are making a statement on how you have chosen to view existence. Atoms are reality, God is the mental filter you choose to view reality through.
More importantly, there is also a difference in saying " I exist", which is the most fundamental truth.

Answer 7

ooh, the theory of existence, there's a lil' something about the theory of believing when it comes to God, but its all about science when it comes to atoms, do you believe in atom? it sounds weird...personally i'll persuade that God is the Alien from outer space who created this world we're living in, if someone desperately doesn't believe in Him, this is funny...

Answer 8

Somebody call the waaaambulance!

Answer 9

When you split God into many pieces...
You get protestants...

When you split atoms into many pieces...

YOU GET THE DEVIL'S WORK (KABOOM!!!)

( "HA! HA! HA!..." evil laughter echoing down eternity....Doo Wah!!!)